Marketing Off Line: Don’t Neglect “First Life”
Did anyone ask if you wanted to add a life to your current one? No one asked me, or I would have said no thank you. So, I now ponder the differences between those who were dying for a Second Life and those who’d be happy with just the one. The question of what kinds of people prefer online community to offline connecting is one that leads to this for marketers: who are the most likely adapters of social media and should brands focus on that channel to the neglect of those who aren’t, shall we say, social?
I am just back from a planning meeting for a 2008 conference on community (what it means/how to inspire it - from all angles), and the discussions with the small group brought to the forefront much about human behavior and offline vs. online connecting. Because that conference is anchored in residential and commercial development, we started our conversation by considering the spaces where people tend to gather - and off it went from there in many fascinating directions. Of course, Second Life and similar online communities were discussed, and that has kept me thinking.
You see - I am someone you’d think would be primed for social media, with my small town lifestyle and mainly online career. I’d be the perfect candidate for lots of online connecting! Still, I have not been tempted to join in wholeheartedly. At the same time, I have a close friend with a very similar lifestyle and career who has jumped on that bandwagon and believes that participating in social networks has greatly enhanced her work/life. Hmmm.
When I recently read an article by Andrew Ettinger in MediaPost on selling and "fanboys" this morning, the human touch topic struck again. The article led with Ettinger’s description of a recent tour of the Maker’s Mark distillery in Kentucky. Keep in mind that he is an associate media director in New York City (so - he’s a likely user of social media) who had an offline brand experience that resonated enough for him to write the piece. He doesn’t seem to think that brands should let the First Life fall by the wayside, and I would certainly agree. As he put it:
This is branding at its best - measurable
sales results coupled with enthusiasm for the product. We forget that
before the Web, there was another interactive medium: real life.
Physically interacting with a brand creates and reinforces brand
loyalty.
Physically interacting with a brand. That still gets mentioned in most integrated channel discussions, I’m sure, but perhaps as a symbolic gesture. How are the brands with products that really demand the human touch affected when they perhaps arbitrarily focus on the latest/greatest online social tools?
Can we safely assume that all young people everywhere will forever want to live online, or will the pendulum swing and the pull of physical interaction with friends - and brands - be felt again by the masses? (For more reading on this from the sociological perspective, check out Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone.)
There is certainly a buzz amongst early adopters of social media, but I’d suggest that brands selling products that really boil down to the physical especially, keep First Life in mind and keep improving the offline end of things at the same pace. If your customer is older than twenty, they have surely realized that life, trends and movements happen in cycles, and that it pays to indulge your cynicism about "progress" a tad.
And, if what Daniel Pink writes about in A Whole New Mind is true (and I’m a believer), we are heading out of the information age and into a more conceptual age - where things like design, storytelling and emotion are expected and rewarded in life and business. Those elements can certainly be delivered online and via social media to some degree, but, such human-scale influences will always shine brightest in that place where everyone hangs his or her hat at the end of the day: the First Life.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
One quick comment is that these online communities like Second Life attract the most passionate users and by identifying and targeting them you can influence ‘first world’ folk. Tough to measure, but nonetheless effective.
Seni
November 26th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Very good point, Seni. And I do realize that Second Lifers influence on First Lifers may be related to generations (younger generations getting all excited about something in Second Life and then influencing the 3 of their peers who aren’t already in Second Life;-). I just occasionally want to insert my old-lady Boomer, First Life enjoyment perspective. THANKS for your input!
November 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I’m curious. There is a fairly consistent comparison being made online between Second Life and “First Life”, as if people are necessarily giving up *active participation* in their first for time interacting with others in SL.
What I hear much less is whether people should be giving up First Life for Television, a passive activity (a much more common topic 30-40 years ago). By extension, I wonder if the application’s name, “Second Life”, contributes to the RL/SL comparison instead of people wondering if time being put into SL (and other socialnet applications) isn’t, in fact, coming from Television.
November 26th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Andrea,
I am a huge proponent of exposing yourself to outside perspectives, which is why I read your blog as a 22 year old male. However, in further support of Second Life and other new media platforms it allows us to build small communities where we can identify passionate users so we can communicate with them. Also, kids aren’t the ones on Second Life, the demo skews older. In fact most kids find SL to be boring and gravitate toward other virtual world like There, Vitual Laguna Beach, etc.
Here’s a post on micro communities:
http://senithomas.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/how-googles-opensocial-will-revolutionize-community-targeting/
And another on misconceptions of the tech youth:
http://senithomas.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/youtube-myth-debunked-kids-are-actually-lazy/
November 26th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Just to echo Seni, most of the people I met inside Second Life when I first used it were in their 40’s and 50’s. These were just users I bumped into and who gave up their age when I’d make reference to something like the song “Dizzy” from Tommy Roe (1969). At 45, I happen to be younger than most of these people (I suspect they also feel more comfortable revealing this information since I don’t conceal mine).
Examples:
One woman is in her 50’s and hangs out in SL with her extended family. She’s very non-techie and doesn’t know much about anything else online, but when she’s not managing grandchildren, SL is her replacement for television. Her husband logs in. Her brother-in-law is very into it. And her 20-something children now join her. She migrated from There because the younger users were insulting the older users (among other things, I’m aware that in some youth-skewed vw’s, older users are often perceived as pedophiles based on their age alone).
Another woman is in her late 40’s and a government employee. She prefers Sims Online to both There and Second Life because she’s very non-techie and it’s more straight-forward for her. She dislikes television which is a problem at home (very similar circumstance to a situation reported in the The Wall Street Journal). Similar to how gamer clans jump from videogame to videogame as a group, she migrated to SL when people she knew in There moved over.
Another woman is in her 50’s and taking care of her parents (and occasional her sister). Cancer survivor and very engaged with SL. Her age was a surprise since her avatar was a goth chick covered in tattoos and dressed in black leather!
Another woman is a CBC journalist who is my age and is now extremely involved in SL. She had a tech background so her enthusiasm is expected.
Another works in Hollywood, is in her late 30’s/early 40’s, and has also become extremely involved in SL.
These were among the first people I met. I was completely amazed that people who barely knew anything about computers and the internet found their way to Second Life. It certainly didn’t fit my expectations.